Clearly. The only team options, outside of rookie-scale deals, currently in the league are:

Francisco Garcia
Dante Cunningham
Jodie Meeks
Mario Chalmers

Where are the other 15 you're claiming?

'Clearly", huh. Just what deep dark hole is your head buried in? (considering your "reading comprehension" remarks, that's due). Actually, I made a mistake, there's 20 other teams, besides Toronto, that currently have "team option" contracts. So, you spout that nobody does it anymore, while 21 of 30 teams currently have these type of contracts.

That is the entire point that tkfu spouted about that you supported him in, that BC is an idiot because he didn't follow that very idea. Have you been drinking?

When there's a MISUNDERSTANDING, it's as simple as clearing it out.

TKFU's point is that a non guaranteed last year is better than a 'team option' because it enables the team to add the contract in a trade. The team that acquires the non guaranteed contract, can simply let the expiry date pass and they'll be free of the contract. He's right about that.

What he's wrong about IMO is that Colangelo idiotically didn't think about it.

So, in conclusion: there was absolutely no discernable reason to sign JL3 to a contract with a team option instead of just making the second year unguaranteed. It deprived the Raptors of a potentially valuable trade asset for absolutely no reason.

Eric Akshinthala wrote:

When there's a MISUNDERSTANDING, it's as simple as clearing it out.

TKFU's point is that a non guaranteed last year is better than a 'team option' because it enables the team to add the contract in a trade. The team that acquires the non guaranteed contract, can simply let the expiry date pass and they'll be free of the contract. He's right about that.

What he's wrong about IMO is that Colangelo idiotically didn't think about it.

I think you are stretching to find tkfu's point. In addition to the title of the thread, his conclusion above says "no discernible reason to sign...with a team option instead of...unguaranteed". I don't think he is trying to explain the obvious correlation between contractual terms and their impacts, as much as he is saying that BC is an idiot for not getting the better (for the team) option.

I'm assuming you got the information from the 2013-2014 FA list. I'm pretty sure there are other team options in the future. I can say off the top of my head that Amir and Varejao have team options for next year.

Both of those guys have unguaranteed final years, not team options.

p00ka wrote:

'Clearly", huh. Just what deep dark hole is your head buried in? (considering your "reading comprehension" remarks, that's due). Actually, I made a mistake, there's 20 other teams, besides Toronto, that currently have "team option" contracts. So, you spout that nobody does it anymore, while 21 of 30 teams currently have these type of contracts.

Every one of those guys you've listed has an unguaranteed final year (or in a couple cases like Hasheem Thabeet, two unguaranteed years), NOT a team option. Wherever you're getting your information from, it's wrong--sounds like they're conflating unguaranteed final years and team options, precisely because pretty much everyone in the league uses unguaranteed deals now.

But for a player, having that team option would be a pseudo no-trade clause. If I were a 30 year old free agent, I'd want a bit more stability for my family, so if I insisted on an option instead of a non-guaranteed deal, I know that I'm not getting moved early without the extra guaranteed money. With a non-guaranteed deal, as a player, I could get moved and waived and be unemployed. For a player there is definitely incentive to have the option route built into the contract over the non-guaranteed route.

And before you start, my reading comprehension is quite high. Don't get tunnel-vision with your views, that's the BC way.

I'm gonna have to dispute that. Having the team option, and the mandate to pick up the option before the player gets traded, doesn't mean it's gonna be picked up. It just means the player will get waived instead. The only way it's advantageous for the player is if there's a situation where all of the following things are true (I'm gonna use JL3 as the example):

- JL3's valuable enough to the Raptors to get his option picked up
- JL3's worthless enough to potential trading partners that, if he were traded, he'd be waived
- Despite the fact that the Raptors think he's worth keeping around, they consider his trade value (to the team that's going to waive him) to be higher than the value of picking up his final year

I have to concede that it's not impossible to imagine a situation like that, but I'd say it's extremely rare. It's probably the reason why Jodie Meeks and Mario Chalmers negotiated team options rather than unguaranteed years; they would rather play for contenders, so they make it a little harder to get traded. But I very much doubt that's what happened with JL3.

I'm gonna have to dispute that. Having the team option, and the mandate to pick up the option before the player gets traded, doesn't mean it's gonna be picked up. It just means the player will get waived instead. The only way it's advantageous for the player is if there's a situation where all of the following things are true (I'm gonna use JL3 as the example):

- JL3's valuable enough to the Raptors to get his option picked up
- JL3's worthless enough to potential trading partners that, if he were traded, he'd be waived
- Despite the fact that the Raptors think he's worth keeping around, they consider his trade value (to the team that's going to waive him) to be higher than the value of picking up his final year

I have to concede that it's not impossible to imagine a situation like that, but I'd say it's extremely rare. It's probably the reason why Jodie Meeks and Mario Chalmers negotiated team options rather than unguaranteed years; they would rather play for contenders, so they make it a little harder to get traded. But I very much doubt that's what happened with JL3.

Well as a 30 year old with a wife and baby, I can relate to how JL3 (or a player like him) would want to extra guaranteed money as compensation for being traded. With the non-guaranteed deal, JL3 gets traded then cut and gets zero dollars for the 2nd year of the deal. In the team option route, if the option is picked up, then if JL3 gets traded and cut, at least the money for year 2 is paid. When you think of the real life ramifications to a human being and their family, it makes a lot of sense for player to want the guaranteed option year.

Well as a 30 year old with a wife and baby, I can relate to how JL3 (or a player like him) would want to extra guaranteed money as compensation for being traded. With the non-guaranteed deal, JL3 gets traded then cut and gets zero dollars for the 2nd year of the deal. In the team option route, if the option is picked up, then if JL3 gets traded and cut, at least the money for year 2 is paid. When you think of the real life ramifications to a human being and their family, it makes a lot of sense for player to want the guaranteed option year.

Right, but the point is that with the team option, he doesn't get traded at all: he just gets cut.

1) Non-guaranteed deals, are better for management, and the same for players in comparison to team options.

2) Therefore, management should always offer an unguaranteed deal as opposed to a team option.

3) Other teams in league are doing it this way

4) BC didn't and therefore he's an ass-clown.

One of there's a number of reasons why something that is so obvious to TKFU is not obvious to me (and I'm guessing others)

1) I didn't know there was a difference between non-guaranteed deals and team options, so I need more explanation before I can agree with you that non-guaranteed deals affect players in he same manner that team options do.

2) If you can convince me point 1, then point 2 is a given.

3) According to hoopshype.com Amir Johnson has a team option for next year. Where can we find information that accurately tells us whether it's a team option or a non-guaranteed contract???

4) If all the above is true it doesn't make coangelo out to be a great GM, but honestly, even if JLIII had an un-guaranteed deal that COULD have been used in a trade, odds are it wouldn't have, and the 1.5 mil is pretty easy to make up in other ways.

So if you can convince me that un-guaranteed deals are the way to go. I'm willing to agree that Coangelo made the wrong call, however, going over the top about how bad that makes him look, distracts from what I think is the interesting part of the post which is about the difference of team options vs. guaranteed deals.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

The best info going on team salaries and player contracts is at shamsports.com.

And, coincidentally, the day after I started this thread Mark Deeks just put up a post talking about this exact issue, and featuring our own beloved Doug Smith mistakenly calling an unguaranteed deal a team option.

Thanks for posting the link, it helped me learn more about the difference between the two. However, I do think your being a bit hard on Coangelo, it's not like being able to include JLIII's salary as part of the trade was the difference between trading for leborn and trading for steve Novak.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

Thanks for posting the link, it helped me learn more about the difference between the two. However, I do think your being a bit hard on Coangelo, it's not like being able to include JLIII's salary as part of the trade was the difference between trading for leborn and trading for steve Novak.

A bit? I think it's flat-out ridiculous. Especially, after how long it's been.

In 2016, when we are rebuilding again. tofu is going to post about how Colangelo fucked up the team too much leaving Ujiri crippled and no choice, but to rebuild..

If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?

Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.

tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

Just throwing this out there (from the shamsports article you quoted, tkfu):

The downside to doing it this way is that players have to be waived for the savings to take effect, which means they get renounced in the process. In contrast, if a team declines a player's team option, they would still have Bird rights on that player in order to re-sign them, and they could also still extend a qualifying offer (if applicable). By being waived as an unguaranteed contracts instead, those benefits are lost. But that minor inconvenience is more than offset by the benefits to such a team-friendly mechanism, which is why its usage is becoming increasingly prevalent in the NBA.

...

Lowry's contract this season calls for a $6.21 million salary this season, of which only $1 million is guaranteed if he is waived before July 15th. This, then, is not a team option. But referring to it as an option gives rise to speculation that is may be "declined" in order to instead tie Lowry down to a longer deal. (I know such speculation to have arisen because I've seen friends of mine give it.) This, as we've seen above, is not possible precisely because it is not an option - to obtain the savings on the contract means waiving Lowry, which means losing Lowry. It is true that if it had been a team option, the Raptors could have declined it in order to try and tie him up for the long term, but it is also true that if it was an option, it would have been decided by now.

I mean... I agree that the real life ramifications were probably not that significant for a player like JL3 or a contract as small as JL3's, but there is at least one scenario in which team options are better.

tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

"The terms of the deal were not immediately disclosed, but it is believed to be a two-year deal in which the second year is unguaranteed."

Given that reporters often mistakenly report unguaranteed years as team options, that Stone wasn't in any kind of position to demand a team option instead of an unguaranteed year and wouldn't have any reason to do so anyway, and that nobody actually gives them out anymore, I think it's pretty safe to assume it's not actually a team option.

tkfu, why you haven't managed to make it into one of the 30 NBA front offices, I don't know, because clearly you're smarter than most GMs. Is it too late to apply for the Raptors' position? Masai seems to be quite the incompetent idiot as well:

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

I've been thinking about this because I very much agreed.... and it just hit me.

In any transaction you have to look at it from the perspective of both parties.

What you notice with non-guaranteed deals, for the most part, is if the option is not picked up by the team there is guaranteed money involved. It might be as little as $500k or as much as $6M (Turkoglu comes to mind - and by the way I just made up those numbers it can really be anything). That guaranteed money does go against the cap.

But why wouldn't the team just make it no guaranteed money?

As we just witnessed the first 10 days of July are crazy. If a player is not available at that time they are significantly going to lower their options/opportunities come mid-July if a team decides to drop them.

So while I definitely agree a non-guaranteed deal with no money guaranteed is in the best interests of the Raptors, or any franchise for that matter, it is not in the best interest of the player and that is why you often see team options versus non-guaranteed deals.

Interesting thread to read over, seeing as Ujiri just signed Hansbrough to a deal with a team option on the second year.

It's possible that's true, but I think it's extraordinarily unlikely. As I've mentioned several times, media members frequently confuse the two, and team press releases even sometimes call non-guaranteed years team options because it's what fans and the media understand. And if you don't believe me on that read the shamsports article linked above.

Let's wait until we've gotten the real scoop from some some reliable sources--this distinction is definitely of the CBA-nerd variety, so it's not wise to trust mainstream sources.

I've been thinking about this because I very much agreed.... and it just hit me.

In any transaction you have to look at it from the perspective of both parties.

What you notice with non-guaranteed deals, for the most part, is if the option is not picked up by the team there is guaranteed money involved. It might be as little as $500k or as much as $6M (Turkoglu comes to mind - and by the way I just made up those numbers it can really be anything). That guaranteed money does go against the cap.

But why wouldn't the team just make it no guaranteed money?

As we just witnessed the first 10 days of July are crazy. If a player is not available at that time they are significantly going to lower their options/opportunities come mid-July if a team decides to drop them.

So while I definitely agree a non-guaranteed deal with no money guaranteed is in the best interests of the Raptors, or any franchise for that matter, it is not in the best interest of the player and that is why you often see team options versus non-guaranteed deals.

I think that's a good point, and I think it's definitely why you see deals that have guarantee dates in the middle of the summer (like Lowry's) having a partially guaranteed portion. The team wants the chance to use the contract as a trade asset during free agency, like you said, but it's disadvantageous for the player, so they negotiate cash compensation instead--works out for both sides.

But what you see a lot more often are deals where the guarantee date is June 30th. That means the team has to make a decision before free agency starts, at the same time they would on a team option deal (because, like you said, the player wouldn't want to miss out on early free agency wheeling and dealing). The only difference is that the non-guaranteed version of the deal allows a trade to be made between the end of the season and the start of free agency--for example on draft day.